WND EXCLUSIVE

Feds plan to force vaccinations

Lawsuit opposes CDC's new health-crisis procedures

Bob Unruh joined WND in 2006 after nearly three decades with the Associated Press, as well as several Upper Midwest newspapers, where he covered everything from legislative battles and sports to tornadoes and homicidal survivalists. He is also a photographer whose scenic work has been used commercially.

A public-interest legal team has filed comments with the federal government objecting to a planned Centers for Disease Control rule-change that would allow the government to impose forced vaccinations on Americans under certain circumstances.

Erin Mersino, senior legal counsel for the Great Lakes Justice Center, explained: “This proposed rule is an abuse of power under the pretext of protecting public safety. The government increasingly acts without constitutional authority, thereby undermining good governance under the rule of law.”

The proposal from the CDC comes in the context of defining government’s power to act against individuals in the case of an outbreak of a communicable disease. But the Great Lakes Justice Center contends “the proposed rule reaches far beyond the CDC’s ability to quarantine a person with a serious disease, such as Ebola, by expanding the quarantine regulations to encompass all communicable diseases.”

The grant of permission for forcibly vaccinating individuals comes in its definitions, the GLJC said.

Under “Agreement,” the CDC states, “HHS/CDC is proposing a definition for ‘agreement’ which refers to an agreement entered into between the CDC and an individual expressing agreement between the parties that the individual will observe public health measures authorized under this part, as the CDC considers reasonably necessary to protect the public’s health, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”

It continues, “CDC may enter into an agreement with an individual, upon such terms as the CDC considers to be reasonably necessary, indicating that the individual consents to any of the public health measures authorized under this part, including quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment; provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to the exercise of any authority under this part.” (Emphasis added)

The GLJC is concerned that the “proposed rule requires forced medical treatment and vaccination of the detained individual without consent.”

“It forbids an individual from objecting to forced medical treatments and vaccinations for any reason – at the threat of criminal prosecution, prison and fines up to $100,000.00.”

The Rumor Has It” website Snopes posted a long article trying to debunk the claim, calling it “an alarmist rumor.”

But Snopes admitted a 1944 law already granted the government the power to “take necessary measures (including the apprehension of individuals) in order to prevent the spread of communicable diseases.”

Snopes claimed the “same rumor focused heavily on ‘forced vaccines’ supposedly to be imposed upon any American abritrarily (sic) plucked off the street as part of a mandatory ‘agreement’ with such persons.”

“However, the NPRM defined those agreements in the context of a severe outbreak of communicable disease, as a measure upon which conditional release from quarantine or isolation might be predicated. No portion of the NPRM described vaccinating isolated or quarantined individuals without their consent (although it allowed for restricting the movement of such individuals during a public health emergency).”

In its definitions, the CDC allows for such “agreement” with individuals indicating consent to “quarantine, isolation, conditional release, medical examination, hospitalization, vaccination, and treatment.”

The definition continues “provided that the individual’s consent shall not be considered as a prerequisite to the exercise of any authority.”

Snopes characterized the dispute as a claim that the CDC “was planning to apprehend and detain Americans to administer forced vaccinations,” which glosses over the fact that the rule purports to give the government the authority to do exactly that in some scenarios.

But it adds that “individuals who violate the terms of the agreement or the terms of the federal order for quarantine, isolation, or conditional release (even if no agreement is in place between the individual and the government), he or she may be subject to criminal penalties as explained in the preamble to section 70.19.”

That section outlines penalties for various offenses ranging up to fines of “not more than $500,000.”

The GLJC told WND the rule plans were “buried in the thousands of pages of new regulations being proposed all the time.”

The GLJC highlights in its opposition statement:

An individual suspected of having a communicable disease who is conditionally released from detention must relinquish his/her constitutionally protected right to privacy. The proposed rule allows the federal government to monitor all of the individual’s electronic and Internet-based communications and activities for an indeterminate period of time.

While the CDC has the power to quarantine individuals suffering from dangerous communicable diseases, such as Ebola, the CDC does not have the general power to force quarantine, isolation, unwanted treatment, and vaccination on individuals based on a mere suspicion that the individual might have a communicable disease.

The CDC cites the 2015 “Disneyland measles outbreak” as justification for the new rule. No outbreak ever existed. CDC records prove there were only 189 measles cases in 2015, down from the 644 cases of measles recorded in 2014.

The Great Lakes Justice Center said it “files this comment in opposition to the CDC’s proposed rule authorizing the incarceration of healthy American citizens who have committed no crime.”

“Even in cases where no evidence of serious illness exists, the CDC’s proposal unconscionably authorizes detention, isolation, quarantine, and vaccination without consent.

“There is little argument that confirmed cases of the Ebola virus disease require serious measures on the part of the CDC to prevent the spread of the disease. The proposed rule, however, reaches far beyond this reasonable scope,” the comments explained. “The proposed rule affects any person traveling into the United States or traveling from one state to another anywhere within the United States, and regulates all ‘communicable diseases,” (i.e., any illness that can be transmitted from one person to another either directly or indirectly). 42 C.F.R. 70.1, 71.1. As the proposed rule states, the definition of ‘communicable diseases’ is broad and left to the unilateral discretion of the president, in consultation with the secretary of Health and Human Services and the surgeon general. 81 Fed. Reg. 54233. The proposed rule applies to a person merely suspected of having a ‘communicable disease’ in a ‘precommunicable stage’ or in a ‘communicable stage,’ meaning that a citizen need not even be contagious for the proposed rule to apply. 81 Fed. Reg. 54233. ”

It continued: “While the government holds ‘the authority to quarantine and isolate individuals with dangerous and communicable diseases in order to protect the public’s health, they also have a duty to respect individual civil liberties.’ The proposed rule fails to protect individual civil liberties. It also is barred by the United States Constitution,” Great Lakes reported.

It pointed out the Fifth Amendment states, “No person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

“The federal government may detain and quarantine an individual only after proving that governmental action is justified because 1) the individual poses an actual threat to the public; 2) the detention is reasonable and effective; 3) the detention fully comports with the due process and equal protection; 4) the individual is provided with safe and comfortable conditions where his/her freedom is restricted no more than necessary; and 5) the individual is reasonably compensated for any loss of income,” it said.

“The CDC should discontinue all efforts to finalize this unconstitutional proposed rule. The proposed rule violates a citizen’s constitutionally protected freedoms and individual liberties and opens the floodgates for error and abuse at the hands of governmental authorities. For all the reasons discussed in this comment, we ask the CDC to rescind its proposed rule.”